>>2602792>Zack Arias>top fucking kek>>2602794If you dont think these :
>>2602136>>2602137aren't noisy then there is nothing that can't be done for you or you have pretty low standards. Can you at last see the dead pixel ?
>Which publications are these? Any fucking real state magazine I have ever worked with, or any place that has standards.Try sending your those pictures to shutterstock and watch them get rejected, cause they are too noisy then apply NR and send them again they will be rejected because they lack detail.
It's common practice to anyone that done that, if you want to preserve detail and reduce that's just what you do. But if you just do "art" and go about taking pictures of twigs, then it's not surprising that you don't know about this.
Do you really think that nikon set the base iso of the d810 at 64 because people wanted to take darker pictures or longer exposures ?
>Why have you not posted a single example of it?See
>>2602735>http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-averaging-noise.htmOr you want me to go through the whole process just to show you so you can lie and say that there is no difference ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-GbuXU8YMQEven the crop factor alien guy knows that
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=image+averagingHere I typed it on youtube for you.
>>2602846I am not
>>2602116 and I am not talking about bracketing at all you moron. You take the same exposure and... ah fuck it just watch the videos.
Makes sense that the people buying the overpriced toys are the ones that know the least about photography.
